February 10, 2016


News Clips For The Day


http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/10/466258777/supreme-court-puts-white-houses-carbon-pollution-limits-on-hold

Supreme Court Puts White House's Carbon Pollution Limits On Hold
BILL CHAPPELL
Updated February 10, 201611:46 AM ET
Published February 10, 20167:21 AM ET

Photograph -- A central piece of President Obama's climate change initiatives is now on hold, after the Supreme Court put a stay on rules limiting carbon pollution generated by U.S. power plants. Charlie Riedel/AP


The heart of the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan is now on hold, after the Supreme Court granted a stay request that blocks the EPA from moving ahead with rules that would lower carbon emissions from the nation's power plants.

The case is scheduled to be argued in June, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. But a decision could be long in coming, particularly if the case winds up in the Supreme Court — meaning that the rules' fate might not be determined before a new presidential administration comes into power in 2017.

Announced in its final form last August, the Clean Power Plan aims to reduce heat-trapping carbon pollution from power plants, which the EPA says generate 32 percent of total carbon emissions. The plan sets a range of new national standards, with deadlines ranging from 2022 to 2030.

NPR's Scott Horsley reports for our Newscast unit:

"More than two-dozen states went to court to challenge the EPA's action, and in a surprise 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court agreed to block the measure — at least until an appeals court can hear arguments in the case this summer.

"Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, who represents Kentucky — a leading coal-producing state — cheered the high court's action. Environmental groups blasted the decision, but say they're confident the EPA's action will ultimately be upheld."
The White House says it disagrees with the decision, adding, "We remain confident that we will prevail on the merits."

Speaking on today's Morning Edition, Scott says, "There's no question they were caught off-guard by this decision, which could be seen as an ominous sign for the president's broader climate agenda."



“More than two-dozen states went to court to challenge the EPA's action, and in a surprise 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court agreed to block the measure — at least until an appeals court can hear arguments in the case this summer. …. The heart of the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan is now on hold, after the Supreme Court granted a stay request that blocks the EPA from moving ahead with rules that would lower carbon emissions from the nation's power plants. The case is scheduled to be argued in June, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. But a decision could be long in coming, particularly if the case winds up in the Supreme Court — meaning that the rules' fate might not be determined before a new presidential administration comes into power in 2017. Announced in its final form last August, the Clean Power Plan aims to reduce heat-trapping carbon pollution from power plants, which the EPA says generate 32 percent of total carbon emissions. The plan sets a range of new national standards, with deadlines ranging from 2022 to 2030.”


Who will be president in 2017? Thirty percent of emissions is enough that curbing the power plants in this way could set back the speed of global warming significantly, I would think. We still need to stop cutting down the world’s forests, use new energy sources extensively and stop driving our cars to go a block down the street to buy some groceries. When I lived in DC I wasn’t using a car most of those years, and I walked several blocks very frequently. I was used to it and it seemed like nothing. I have a car down here and I’ve stopped doing that. It seems so “inconvenient” to walk when I don’t have to.



http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/10/466284379/in-letter-judge-urges-obama-to-commute-sentence-he-imposed-a-decade-ago

In Letter, Judge Urges Obama To Commute Sentence He Imposed A Decade Ago
EYDER PERALTA
February 10, 2016 12:35 PM ET

YouTube -- The Story Of Weldon Angelos


In a letter to president Obama, a former federal judge is asking that a sentence he handed down in 2004 be commuted.

"In looking back on the case, it was one of the most troubling that I ever faced in my five years on the federal bench," Paul G. Cassell wrote on Tuesday.

Because of prison terms mandated by law, Cassell sentenced Weldon Angelos to 55 years in prison.

As the court documents describe, Angelos was a first-time offender when he was convicted of dealing marijuana at 24-years-old. But his case was complicated by the fact that Angelos carried a gun to two drug deals and then a third offense was added when police executed a search warrant and found more guns at Angelos' home.

Because of the weapons charges and because of the mandatory minimums crafted by the law, Cassell was forced to issue the 55-year-sentence.

At the time, Cassell, who was nominated to the federal bench by George W. Bush in 2001, complained that the sentence was "unjust, cruel and even irrational."

"The 55–year sentence substantially exceeds what the jury recommended to the court," Cassell wrote in his sentencing memorandum. "It is also far in excess of the sentence imposed for such serious crimes as aircraft hijacking, second degree murder, espionage, kidnapping, aggravated assault, and rape. It exceeds what recidivist criminals will likely serve under the federal 'three strikes' provision."

In his letter to Obama, Cassell said that this sentence was hard to defend when it was imposed, but that he is glad that Obama and his Justice Department have started reviewing these unfair sentences.

As we've been reporting, President Obama has commuted the sentences of about 200 men and women who were convicted of committing nonviolent offenses under what the administration has called "unjust — and now outdated — drug crime sentencing rules."

Back in 2004, Cassell called for the commutation of Angelos' sentence. Now, as a retired judge and a professor of law at the University of Utah, he's calling for it again.

He explains:

As for Angelos, his two kids, who were five and seven when he was sentenced, are now teenagers and he is asking President Obama to commute his sentence.

Generation Opportunity, which advocates for criminal justice reform, recently spoke to his sister and his sons in the video of his story: (Go to Video named above.)



"The 55–year sentence substantially exceeds what the jury recommended to the court," Cassell wrote in his sentencing memorandum. "It is also far in excess of the sentence imposed for such serious crimes as aircraft hijacking, second degree murder, espionage, kidnapping, aggravated assault, and rape. It exceeds what recidivist criminals will likely serve under the federal 'three strikes' provision." In his letter to Obama, Cassell said that this sentence was hard to defend when it was imposed, but that he is glad that Obama and his Justice Department have started reviewing these unfair sentences.”


I am so happy to see a judge making a strong complaint against the mandatory minimum laws. I think it is great that he pointed up the fact that such laws are not only unfair, they are “irrational.” It shows some real THINKING going on among legal and court personnel, rather than judges just trying to get a name for themselves as being strict, so the public will then elect them to a higher court position. Some members of the public are downright bloodthirsty in the way they view the world.


Crimes like child molestation and rape too often do get light sentences, as a jury becomes convinced that the woman “was asking for it.” Whether she was asking for it or not, it’s still a vicious and violent crime and a sin. Murder, likewise, should receive a heavy sentence, even more than rape. I think the laws that cause the use of a weapon in the commission of a crime to receive a hefty sentence are also fair. A robber who beats up or shoots a store owner in order to stop him from calling the police should be heavily punished.

Still, if mandatory minimums are used, they should be lighter sentences than are sometimes used, and the combining of several issues into the grounds for a sentence should be used only in serious crimes. Fifty-five years for a nonviolent sale of marijuana charge is ridiculous. Rapists often get out with ten or less. Putting a boy in jail who has stolen a candy bar while running with a gang shouldn’t receive those very heavy sentences. Look, Republicans, housing all those who are convicted of minor crimes is EXPENSIVE and unfair when PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT would be better for drug abuse and for many violent crimes among the young. As for giving jail terms for that “crime” of failure to pay court costs or fines when the individual simply can’t afford it, that is an obscenity.

The young mind is still malleable. Such a criminal may be turned from his misguided, emotionally damaged or simply underprivileged youth into a productive and much gentler adult with psychiatric therapy. Prisons, when I was young, were meant to be places of help for the criminal rather than merely for punishment. In these “conservative” times, there has been a strong trend toward things which to me can legitimately be called “cruel and unusual,” such as putting a teen into solitary confinement. Several horror stories have been in the news about the psychological damage to such a young person – or an adult either, for that matter -- that long term and intense solitary confinement can cause. See the article below for more on the subject.



http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/10/ferguson-department-of-justice-lawsuit-police-reforms

Department of Justice will sue Ferguson to force criminal justice reforms
US attorney general opens civil rights lawsuit after Ferguson city council to challenges proposed reforms aimed at eradicating racial discrimination
Jon Swaine and Ciara McCarthy
Wednesday 10 February 2016 17.22 EST

Ferguson police
A Department of Justice report into the department last year concluded that residents in Ferguson routinely had their civil rights violated. Photograph: Michael B Thomas/Getty Images

The Department of Justice will sue Ferguson, Missouri, to force an overhaul of the beleaguered city’s criminal justice system.

Ferguson mired in sweeping racial discrimination, federal report finds ( Read more.)

US attorney general Loretta Lynch moved swiftly to open a civil rights lawsuit following a decision by Ferguson’s city council on Tuesday to challenge several measures in a draft reform agreement that the city had negotiated with federal officials over a painstaking months-long process.

The agreement was aimed at remedying racist practices in the courts and policing of the St Louis suburb, which erupted into unrest twice in 2014 over the fatal shooting by a white police officer of Michael Brown, an unarmed black 18-year-old.

A pattern of serious problems was detailed in a scathing report published last year after an inquiry by Justice Department investigators. It concluded that residents routinely had their constitutional rights violated through unjustified arrests, traffic stops and other actions.

Ferguson officials on Tuesday outlined seven amendments to the justice department’s proposed agreement, including a requirement that the terms not extend to other agencies in the city. Such a change would nullify much of the agreement should the city disband its police force. In addition, city councillors insisted that the agreement remove a mandate for additional salary for city employees.

**** Go to website for scrollable copy of the lawsuit itself. It consists of 56 pages.



“US attorney general Loretta Lynch moved swiftly to open a civil rights lawsuit following a decision by Ferguson’s city council on Tuesday to challenge several measures in a draft reform agreement that the city had negotiated with federal officials over a painstaking months-long process. …. A pattern of serious problems was detailed in a scathing report published last year after an inquiry by Justice Department investigators. It concluded that residents routinely had their constitutional rights violated through unjustified arrests, traffic stops and other actions. Ferguson officials on Tuesday outlined seven amendments to the justice department’s proposed agreement, including a requirement that the terms not extend to other agencies in the city. Such a change would nullify much of the agreement should the city disband its police force. In addition, city councillors insisted that the agreement remove a mandate for additional salary for city employees.”


The officials of Ferguson would do better to comply with the contract which they did sign. Not only that, if they do want to have better police force and city they will pay their workers better, hire only more educated officers, treat the neighborhoods fairly, stop squeezing the people dry on fines for minor things, and stop bullying people. They will have riots if they don't. Surely they don't want that.



POLITICS FEBRUARY 10TH UPDATE – FOUR ITEMS


http://www.npr.org/2016/02/10/466276101/bernie-sanders-dines-with-al-sharpton-in-harlem

Bernie Sanders Dines With Al Sharpton In Harlem
SUSAN DAVIS
Updated February 10, 201612:34 PM ET
Published February 10, 201611:11 AM ET

Photograph -- The Rev. Al Sharpton talks with Sen. Bernie Sanders at Sylvia's Restaurant in Harlem the morning after Sanders' New Hampshire primary victory over Hillary Clinton. Richard Drew/AP


The morning after his New Hampshire primary victory, Bernie Sanders made a highly publicized visit to Harlem to dine with Al Sharpton, one of America's most prominent civil rights activists and media personalities.

The two dined at Sylvia's, the same New York City restaurant where Sharpton huddled with Barack Obama during his 2008 presidential campaign.

Wednesday's meeting was a not-so-subtle recognition of Sanders' pivot to South Carolina and Sanders' effort to broaden his appeal to the state's decisive African-American voters.

Hillary Clinton has been heavily favored in polls to date to win South Carolina, in part due to Clinton support among African-American voters.

But Sanders' strong finish in New Hampshire and fresh appeal to younger voters will further test Clinton's perceived strength in the Feb. 27 primary.

More than half of South Carolina's primary voters were black in the 2008 contest pitting Clinton against Obama, the first black candidate for president.

She lost by a 29 percentage point margin.

Now facing a white liberal from Vermont in 2016, Clinton has led by double-digits in South Carolina polls. But Sanders has 17 days to close that gap.

Clinton's strength among black and Latino voters is critical to her electability argument.

"It will be very difficult, if not impossible, for a Democrat to win the nomination without strong levels of support among African American and Hispanic voters," Robby Mook, Clinton's campaign manager, wrote in a Tuesday memo to reporters.

Speaking to reporters after breakfast, Sharpton said he also plans to meet with Clinton next week. An endorsement in the race would likely come after that, he said.

Sanders did not take questions from reporters waiting for him outside the restaurant.



"It will be very difficult, if not impossible, for a Democrat to win the nomination without strong levels of support among African American and Hispanic voters," Robby Mook, Clinton's campaign manager, wrote in a Tuesday memo to reporters. Speaking to reporters after breakfast, Sharpton said he also plans to meet with Clinton next week. An endorsement in the race would likely come after that, he said. Sanders did not take questions from reporters waiting for him outside the restaurant.”


I’m glad to see that Al Sharpton is meeting with him because he has for years been a primary and eloquent spokesperson for the black community, and he’s a real liberal. If he does endorse Bernie and much of the black vote does follow his lead, Sanders may very well be the next president. Go, Bernie!!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvME0Dqz1o0

Video -- Jim Hightower endorses Bernie Sanders
Andrew Saturn

This VIDEO is a beautiful comment by Jim Hightower. He says what I’ve been thinking about Sanders and about what we need now at this treacherous time.


COMMENTS

Dylan Lapp 2 days ago
I think I saw a glimmer of the American Dream come back in those words! It's been missing from my life for sure! That's why they call it the American DREAM; it's about hope for a brighter future!

Peter Perfect 1 day ago
A politician as great as Teddy Roosevelt or FDR only comes around once in a lifetime. I think Bernie is today's FDR.

Ricky Coleman 1 day ago
AMEN!!! Go Sen. Bernie Sanders...

Leticia Cortez 1 day ago
Thank you Jim, you have my full respect!

Quinn Petersen 1 day ago
Don't ask what Bernie can do for you. ask what you can do for Bernie!!!!! Vote for Bernie Sanders !!!!! #feelthebern

Capital Bhoy 1 day ago
Texas needs more human beings like this very insightful gentleman. Now please everyone reading this who can, get out tomorrow and vote for Sanders New Hampshire!

A Bernie Sanders Nomination Will Be The Best Thing For The Democratic Party. Part 1 of 5 http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/1/29/1476811/-A-Bernie-Sanders-Nomination-Will-The-Best-Thing-For-The-Democratic-Party-Part-1-of-5

Michael Burns 1 day ago
Thank you, Jim. Bernie breaks the mold. He can't be bought-- and perhaps even more importantly, he can't be distracted. An actual hero of the working class. We haven't see this in a major party for a long, long time.

Bob Rolander 1 day ago
"I welcome their hatred." Classic! =)



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/seven-takeaways-from-the-new-hampshire-exit-polls/

Seven takeaways from the New Hampshire primary exit polls
By MELISSA HERRMANN AND JEANNE ZAINO CBS NEWS
February 10, 2016, 1:09 AM

Play VIDEO -- Analysis of the Republican results in New Hampshire
Play VIDEO -- How the N.H. primary affects the GOP race
Photograph -- 2016-02-10t032910z255849160tb3ec2a09ob8yrtrmadp3usa-election-trump.jpg, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump reacts at his 2016 New Hampshire presidential primary night rally in Manchester, New Hampshire February 9, 2016. REUTERS/JIM BOURG
Play VIDEO -- Bernie Sanders' decisive win in New Hampshire
Play VIDEO -- Donald Trump victorious in New Hampshire GOP primary


The New Hampshire primary is usually known as the graveyard of pollsters, but not this year. In this case, the polls generally got it right.

As predicted, businessman Donald Trump and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, carried the night by double-digit margins over their competitors. And that's just one of the main takeaways from the exit polls in this all-important first primary -- here are seven others:

1. An increasingly polarized electorate

Since President Obama's election there has been a lot of discussion about gridlock in Washington, brought on in part by the increasing polarization of the political parties. This type of deepening schism appears to have spread to the electorate as well. Whereas 53 percent of Republicans identified as conservative in 2012, four years later that number increased almost twenty percentage points to 71 percent.

Most New Hampshire GOP voters are conservative, but just about 27 percent identify as very conservative (far fewer than the 40 percent in the Iowa caucuses).

Trump won the backing of those who describe themselves as very or somewhat conservative (65 percent), followed by Texas Sen. Cruz (34 percent) and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (28 percent). Twenty-seven percent of Republicans were moderate and of those, 32 percent voted for Trump and 28 percent supported Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

Similarly, on the Democratic side the percentage of voters identifying as liberal increased from 56 percent in 2008 to almost 70 percent in 2016. That said, Sanders' overarching support existed regardless of ideology, finding 60 percent support with both liberal and moderate/conservative Democrats.

2. First-time voters supported primary winners

First-time voters made up only a small percentage of the electorate Tuesday night - 15 percent on the Republican side (in comparison with 12 percent in 2012) and 17 percent on the Democratic side (down from 19 percent in 2008).

In both cases, however, the first timers went with the winners. Among the Republicans, Trump won 36 percent of these voters, Kasich came in second with 19 percent, and Cruz came in third with 12 percent. On the Democratic side, almost eight in 10 first-time voters supported Sanders.

3. Agreement on the economy, but disagreement on terrorism

Regardless of party, most respondents agreed that the economy is the most important issue facing the nation. On the threat of terrorism, however, there was a notable disparity between Democrats and Republicans.

Following the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernadino late last year, terrorism became an increasingly important issue in this election. The exit polls show, however, that concern about a terrorist attack is not equally spread amongst Republicans and Democrats. Whereas 23 percent of GOP voters see terrorism as the most important issue in the election, only 10 percent of Democrats rated terrorism as a critical issue.

Of the Republican New Hampshire Primary voters who see the economy as the most important issue, 27 percent of them supported Trump, 24 percent of them supported Kasich. Trump was also the top candidate choice for the other three issues: immigration (50 percent), terrorism (27 percent), and government spending (31 percent).

For the Democratic New Hampshire primary voters who see the economy as the most important issue (33 percent), the majority (59 percent) voted for Sanders. The second most important issue was income inequality (32 percent), and that found overwhelming support for Sanders (70 percent).

4. Is this the year of the outsiders?

In an election year in which so much focus was placed on the outsiders versus the establishment, exit polls showed that while the anti-establishment vote prevailed on the right, that wasn't necessarily the case on the left.

Republican voters were nearly evenly split between those who wanted a candidate with political experience (45 percent) and those who want a political outsider (50 percent). Those voters who wanted a candidate from the establishment lane tended to support Kasich (28 percent) and Bush (20 percent), while those who preferred an outsider went overwhelmingly for Trump (61 percent).

By contrast, almost seven in ten Democratic voters said they prefer someone with experience, while only 27 percent said they prefer an outsider. And while Sanders did get overwhelming support from those who said they want an outsider, he also got almost as much support as Clinton did from those who said they prefer a candidate with experience (50 to 49 percent).

5. More than 40 percent of voters in both parties are independent

New Hampshire's semi-open primary is somewhat unique in that it allows voters who are registered as independents or unaffiliated to cast a vote in either of the party's primaries.

Independents didn't disappoint -- they made up more than 40 percent of the voters who turned out in both the Republican (42 percent) and Democratic (40 percent) primaries. While this was not quite as high as turnout in some recent New Hampshire primaries, it is clear that independents continue to matter more in the Granite State than in other states, including the first-in-the-nation caucus, where just 20 percent of voters are independents. Trump won among independents (32 percent), followed by Kasich (18 percent), and Bush and Cruz with 11 percent each. Sanders handily won with 70 percent of the independents.

6. Issue stance outweighs leadership qualities

Both Democrats and Republicans agreed that a candidate's position on the issues is more important than their leadership qualities. Almost three quarters of Democrats picked issue position (72 percent) over leadership (25 percent). Of those who think issue position is more important than leadership qualities, 66 percent voted for Sanders. Among those who feel leadership qualities are more important 54 percent went with Clinton.

Similarly on the Republican side almost six in ten respondents said issue position (58 percent) is more important than leadership qualities (40 percent). Among those who said issue position matters, 37 percent voted for Trump. Trump also won among those who feel leadership qualities are important garnering 31 percent of the vote, while Kasich got 20 percent.

7. Winning in November isn't a critical factor

It is commonly said that voters in New Hampshire take electability into account when they go to cast their ballot. And while some clearly do, it is not nearly as important a factor in decision making amongst either Republicans or Democrats as other issues.

Only 12 percent of GOP voters rated electability as a key factor in making their voting decision. Among those who did, Trump won 32 percent of the vote, followed closely by Rubio at 30 percent. In Iowa, Rubio also won those voters who most valued a candidate who could win in November.

GOP voters are not nearly as interested in electability, however, as they are in having a nominee who shares their values (35 percent), is capable of bringing about change (28 percent) or one who tells it like it is (24 percent). Trump was the top choice of both voters who want a change candidate (36 percent) and those who want a candidate who speaks his mind (65 percent), while Kasich and Cruz tied at 21 percent among those voters who want a candidate who shares their values.

Similarly, only 12 percent of Democratic voters stated that electability is key to their voting decision. Of those who did, an overwhelming number voted for Clinton (79 percent). The quality that mattered the most to Democrats was choosing a nominee who is honest and trustworthy (34 percent). Of those voters who value this quality, more than nine out of ten cast their ballot for Sanders.



“Similarly, on the Democratic side the percentage of voters identifying as liberal increased from 56 percent in 2008 to almost 70 percent in 2016. That said, Sanders' overarching support existed regardless of ideology, finding 60 percent support with both liberal and moderate/conservative Democrats. …. Whereas 23 percent of GOP voters see terrorism as the most important issue in the election, only 10 percent of Democrats rated terrorism as a critical issue. …. For the Democratic New Hampshire primary voters who see the economy as the most important issue (33 percent), the majority (59 percent) voted for Sanders. The second most important issue was income inequality (32 percent), and that found overwhelming support for Sanders (70 percent). …. More than 40 percent of voters in both parties are independent -- New Hampshire's semi-open primary is somewhat unique in that it allows voters who are registered as independents or unaffiliated to cast a vote in either of the party's primaries. …. Both Democrats and Republicans agreed that a candidate's position on the issues is more important than their leadership qualities. Almost three quarters of Democrats picked issue position (72 percent) over leadership (25 percent). Of those who think issue position is more important than leadership qualities, 66 percent voted for Sanders. Among those who feel leadership qualities are more important 54 percent went with Clinton.”


“As predicted, businessman Donald Trump and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, carried the night by double-digit margins over their competitors.” I think the issues this year are deeply felt matters – economic inequality and real loss of personal income security for Democrats. Republicans are feeling stressed as well, with America’s international status and fears for their individual safety, especially relating to Jihadism for Republicans. Also, let’s face it, there’s a lot more class competition and racial/religious/gender hatred coming from their side.

It is not surprising that the poorer groups who do tend to vote Democratic, are really worried now about things like housing, health care and food. We are also angry rather than merely fearful about the wealth divide and the fact that so many Republicans don’t work for a living, but make their money on stocks which are not taxed as heavily as wages. That is grossly unfair when the poor and Middle Class are required to shoulder the greater tax burden on their smaller income.

I knew I was a liberal and liked the things that Sanders says, but was surprised that so many other Democrats are going for him over Clinton. I honestly think a large number of people just don’t trust her. She has been in a few too many political scrapes since I’ve been watching her, and has personally made a great deal of money from her career. Sanders may actually be profiting from his lack of name recognition and familiarity among the average voter, who when we hear what his views are find him preferable. Clinton, to me, is a little too “luke warm” for my tastes, and maybe too comfortable. She is also very, very ambitious, but of course everybody in politics is. That’s partly why I don’t trust her as much as Sanders, though. I think she frequently says the popular thing rather than the courageous thing, which is a characteristic I absolutely don’t want in a leader of our country. We need free thinkers and leaders, especially at this time in our history when the Rightists are making such a strong play to totally take over. I don’t want to wake up one morning and find myself suddenly a Baptist!

I know some of you will think that statement is just paranoid, but I unfortunately don’t think it is. We need a good, strong, very liberal leader and members of the legislature who also are of that same stripe. Our nation is in a time of severe danger. I do hope Sanders will be elected President and will nominate Elizabeth Warren as his Vice President. If she were running for President I would find no difficulty in voting for her.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-kasich-jeb-bush-cant-seem-to-know-what-hes-for/

John Kasich: I love "being underestimated"
By REENA FLORES CBS NEWS
February 10, 2016, 8:11 AM


Coming off a second-place finish in New Hampshire's Republican primary race Tuesday night, Ohio Gov. John Kasich is taking a victory lap -- and lobbing attacks at some rival GOP candidates in the process.

In an interview with "CBS This Morning" early Wednesday, Kasich slammed former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush for his campaign's negative turn.

"The Bush campaign spent like -- they've already, they raised like $115 million, they spent like $50 million in New Hampshire," Kasich said. "They couldn't work with a positive message so they just go negative. Negative, negative, negative and distorting negative."

"As Arnold Schwarzenegger once told me about negative campaigns, he said, 'John, love the beatings,'" Kasich continued. "So I do love the beatings. But the fact is the Bush campaign can't figure out what it's for and the candidate can't seem to know what he's for, so they spend all their time bashing somebody else."

The Ohio governor added that if he gets hit by the negative advertising, "I'm not gonna take a pounding."

"I'm not some kind of a pin cushion or a marshmallow," he said. "But I think people are tired of the negativity."

Of his own focus on New Hampshire and the results it yielded Tuesday night, Kasich claimed that he loved the feeling of "being underestimated."

"A lot of people said a lot of things," he said. "They said I wasn't gonna get in the race, I wouldn't raise the money, I wouldn't make the debate, I wouldn't do well in New Hampshire, I was gonna drop out, I was gonna disappear and now we're here."

"So I love the un -- being underestimated," Kasich added. "I have all of my lifetime."

The GOP candidate looked forward to the next primary state but also also laid out a vision for his campaign beyond South Carolina.

"We're gonna compete here in parts of South Carolina but we're gonna be moving on a course to the rest of the country," he said.


Most of the things I saw in an article about Kasich do cause him to sound like a conservative, but others sound like he’s a moderate. It is a clue to the matter that some Republicans have been criticizing Kasich and claiming that he is outside the parameters for a good Republican. I wouldn’t be nearly as nervous if Kasich were to be elected president as I would if any of the others were. Kasich looks and talks, including his tone of voice, choice of words and facial expression, very differently from Donald Trump or Ted Cruz.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-investigation-genetic-tests-pathway-genomics-profit-over-evidence/

In modern-day gold rush of genetic testing, profit placed above proof
CBS NEWS
February 10, 2016, 7:47 AM

Play VIDEO -- Claim of early cancer detection test raises questions


Genetic testing could lead to huge scientific breakthroughs in preventing cancer, but it can also be misleading. In Part 1 of a CBS News investigation, we reported about the questionable marketing claims that a blood test can detect cancer before symptoms appear. In Part 2 of the investigation, we look into the booming genetic testing industry that some call the modern-day gold rush.

An average of eight to 10 genetic testing products are being put on the market every day, according to a recent estimate. But in the rush to put tests in physicians' hands, our investigation found profit being placed above scientific proof, reports CBS News correspondent Jim Axelrod.

Last September, a company called Pathway Genomics launched a blood test making game-changing claims.

"CancerIntercept can detect a growing tumor in the body before the patient may notice symptoms. It's like a cancer stethoscope for detecting and monitoring cancer," their marketing video claimed.

We were intrigued. So a few weeks ago CBS News sat down with Pathway CEO Jim Plante to ask him about the evidence.

"Can you tell me about the studies you've done?" Axelrod asked Plante.

"Before we launched the test, we had a clinical study of more than 100," Plante responded.

"Is 100 enough?" Axelrod asked.

"Well, it depends on what you're looking for, right?" Plante said. "You could make an argument that there's never enough data, right? But as you get more information, then you can say more things."

"My question is about the testing. Has your product been clinically validated?" Axelrod said.

"Our test has been validated under the current regulatory requirements," Plante said.

That doesn't mean much since under current FDA regulations, labs that develop tests like these don't have to prove their claims before they go to market.

"It's backwards. It's exactly backwards," said Dr. Stephen Master, director of the Central Laboratory at New York Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical College.

"How can a test like that go on the market before it's been validated?" Axelrod asked Master.

"Well the current law allows laboratories a lot of leeway in what they do," Master said. "What seems to have changed though is that there now is a business model that has emerged."

The explosion of unproven lab-developed tests on the market is a big concern for researchers like Dr. Theodora Ross, who runs the cancer genetics program at the University of Texas Southwestern.

"I think that people are not waiting long enough before they send the test out," Ross said.

She agreed the science gets shortchanged in the face of business.

"If the FDA were to come in and say, 'Show me your data,' they couldn't show the data, they should not be testing these patients," Ross said.

"Why not?" Axelrod asked.

"Because it's useless," Ross said.

Of course, most laboratory-developed tests probably are clinically useful, but since companies aren't required to prove it, we just don't know for sure.



“The explosion of unproven lab-developed tests on the market is a big concern for researchers like Dr. Theodora Ross, who runs the cancer genetics program at the University of Texas Southwestern. "I think that people are not waiting long enough before they send the test out," Ross said. …. Last September, a company called Pathway Genomics launched a blood test making game-changing claims. "CancerIntercept can detect a growing tumor in the body before the patient may notice symptoms. It's like a cancer stethoscope for detecting and monitoring cancer," their marketing video claimed. …. "Our test has been validated under the current regulatory requirements," Plante said. That doesn't mean much since under current FDA regulations, labs that develop tests like these don't have to prove their claims before they go to market. …. The explosion of unproven lab-developed tests on the market is a big concern for researchers like Dr. Theodora Ross, who runs the cancer genetics program at the University of Texas Southwestern. "I think that people are not waiting long enough before they send the test out," Ross said. She agreed the science gets shortchanged in the face of business. ”


This is one of those issues that is disturbing to me, not because of probable danger to the patient from the test itself, but from the fact that cancer treatments are very harsh. If a patient who actually doesn’t have cancer has to go through chemo and radiation, he will very likely suffer and possibly be made more severely ill before he gets any better. If a given test is very effective, however, and if it can pinpoint the place within the body where the tumor is growing, this early detection should be very helpful. Still, labs should do thorough testing before they put anything out on the market, and if the FDA rules are insufficiently strong, then we need to change those rules. It is particularly undesirable that “science gets shortchanged in the face of business ….” Could it be that our current rules were crafter by Republicans and, as usual, favor big business purposely? I hope Bernie Sanders will look into this if he is elected President.



http://blogs.ancestry.com/cm/2015/04/17/history-of-irish-surnames-is-yours-here/?utm_source=taboola&utm_site=cbsinteractive-cbsnews&o_xid=66590&o_lid=66590&o_sch=Content+Marketing

A History of Irish Surnames: Is Yours Here?
Ancestry


The earliest known Irish surname is O’Clery (O Cleirigh); it’s the earliest known because it was written that the lord of Aidhne, Tigherneach Ua Cleirigh, died in County Galway back in the year 916 A.D.

In fact, that Irish name may actually be the earliest surname recorded in all of Europe.

Until about the 10th century in Ireland, surnames were not passed down from generation to generation. Instead, surnames were patronymic, or based on someone’s father’s name. A person was identified by his given name plus “mac,” meaning “son of,” followed by his father’s name.

For instance, Brian mac Colum was Brian, son of Colum. Brian’s son might be Finnian mac Brian (Finnian, son of Brian).

The female form of “mac” is “nic,” shortened from the Irish iníon mhic.
Alternatively, the prefix “o” was sometimes used in place of “mac” and meant “grandson of” or “descended from.” If Colum was well known, his grandson might have gone by the name Finnian O Colum.

Enter your last name to learn its meaning and origin.

There were no fixed surnames, so a surname changed every generation or two. That can make tracing your family tree a bit more complicated!

But even without hereditary surnames, those names still hold clues. For example, that person named O’Clery or O Cleirigh (or Ua Cleirigh) was the grandson or descendant of someone named Cleirigh. (“Ua” was an earlier form of “O.”)

It was around the 1100s, as the population was increasing, that people in the upper social classes started taking hereditary surnames (those that remain fixed over the generations); others didn’t need surnames, or even get around to them, until the 1500s.

Another strong influence on Irish names came with the Norman invasion of 1169, when a lot of Anglo-French names came marching into Ireland (this, too, is when the Latin-derived prefix “Fitz,” meaning “son of,” first came into Irish names). It’s from this influence that some of the names we now consider Irish — Costello, Power, Burke, and others — first entered the scene.

And in the 1500s, the influence of the English was beginning to make itself felt in Ireland. Ireland was experiencing religious persecution and invasions, and many changes came to the island — including the changing of Irish names, steadily but surely over the ensuing years, into ones that sounded more English.

An example of this was the common Irish surname Mac Gabhann, which meant “son of a smith.” Some Mac Gabhanns, living in County Cavan, had their name translated to Smith and it remained that way. Others outside that area resisted, but the spelling became anglicized and they became Mac/McGowans. This was very common.

Also, in many cases the prefixes Mac and O were done away with.

Many surnames originated as occupational or descriptive names. That earliest known name, O Cleirigh (O’Clery), was someone descended from a clerk; Mac an Bhaird (Ward) was son of a bard; and Mac Labhrain (MacCloran) was son of a spokesman.

Descriptive names were names that described the first person to take them. The first person with the name Dubh (Duff) (“black” or “dark”) was probably dark featured. Other descriptive surnames include Bane (“white”), Crone (“brown”), and Lawder (“strong”).

Irish toponymic surnames, deriving from a place where the original name bearer once lived, are rare. They include Ardagh, Athy, Bray, Kelly, Sutton, and a few others.


The most common Irish surnames in Ireland haven’t changed much for a century. Here are 10 of them:

1. Murphy — The Anglicized version of the Irish surname Ó Murchadha and Mac Murchadha, meaning “sea warrior.”
2. Kelly — The origin of this Irish name is uncertain. An Anglicized version of the Irish name Ó Ceallaigh, it can describe a warrior or mean “white-headed,” “frequenting churches,” or “descendant of Ceallach.”
3. O’Sullivan — (Ó Súileabháin or Ó Súilleabháin in Irish). In 1890, 90 percent of the O’Sullivans were estimated to be in Munster. Many people agree that the basic surname means “eye,” but they do not agree whether the rest of the name means “one-eyed,” “hawk-eyed,” “black-eyed,” or something else.
4. Walsh — This name came to Ireland via British soldiers during the Norman invasion of Ireland and means “from Wales.” It’s derived from Breathnach or Brannagh.
5. Smith — This surname does not necessarily suggest English ancestry, as some think; often the surname was derived from Gabhann (which means “smith”).
6. O’Brien — This name came down from Brian Boru (941-1014) who was king of Munster; his descendants took the name Ó Briain.
7. Byrne (also Byrnes; O’Byrne) — from the Irish name Ó Broin (“raven”; also, descendant of Bran); this dates to the ancient Celtic chieftain Bran mac Máelmórda, a King of Leinster in the 11th century.
8. Ryan — This name has various possible origins: from the Gaelic Ó Riagháin (grandson or descendant of Rían) or Ó Maoilriain (grandson/descendant of Maoilriaghain) or Ó Ruaidhín (grandson/descendant of the little red one). Or it may be a simplification of the name Mulryan. It means “little king.”
9. O’Connor — From Ó Conchobhair (grandson or descendant of Conchobhar; “lover of hounds”).
10. O’Neill — Anglicized from the Gaelic Ua Néill (grandson or descendant of Niall). The name is connected with meanings including “vehement” and “champion.” The main O’Niall family is descended from the historic “Niall of the Nine Hostages.”
— Leslie Lang

Learn more about your own Irish ancestry and surnames at Ancestry.


“In fact, that Irish name may actually be the earliest surname recorded in all of Europe. Until about the 10th century in Ireland, surnames were not passed down from generation to generation. Instead, surnames were patronymic, or based on someone’s father’s name. A person was identified by his given name plus “mac,” meaning “son of,” followed by his father’s name. For instance, Brian mac Colum was Brian, son of Colum. Brian’s son might be Finnian mac Brian (Finnian, son of Brian). The female form of “mac” is “nic,” shortened from the Irish iníon mhic. Alternatively, the prefix “o” was sometimes used in place of “mac” and meant “grandson of” or “descended from.” If Colum was well known, his grandson might have gone by the name Finnian O Colum. …. Another strong influence on Irish names came with the Norman invasion of 1169, when a lot of Anglo-French names came marching into Ireland (this, too, is when the Latin-derived prefix “Fitz,” meaning “son of,” first came into Irish names). It’s from this influence that some of the names we now consider Irish — Costello, Power, Burke, and others — first entered the scene. …. And in the 1500s, the influence of the English was beginning to make itself felt in Ireland. Ireland was experiencing religious persecution and invasions, and many changes came to the island — including the changing of Irish names, steadily but surely over the ensuing years, into ones that sounded more English.”


This rundown on names and history is very interesting to me. This rundown on names and history is very interesting to me. That O’Cleary might be the oldest surname in Europe, and goes back to the early 900s AD is downright exciting. I do wish I had majored in anthropology/archaeology at nineteen years of age instead of English.

My family name Maness is Scotch Irish (or Scots Irish) and they came from Ulster. They are one family of those Protestants who came in and fought bloody street battles with the Catholics until the last fifteen or so years when the British made peace with the Northern Ireland opposition. Irish people tend to refer to it as “the troubles.” I just looked mine up on the Ancestry site and it said that the original name was probably Manes, and of Dutch origin. To get any more information I would have to pay a fee. Ancestry is not a free service.